These two sentences almost made me cough out my coffee:
“The journey towards prosperity and a First World status began only in 1959, when the People’s Action Party took over the government. Clearly, then, Sir Stamford could not have been the founder of modern Singapore.”
These assertions were contained in a letter to the Straits Times Forum, published 5 January 2019. Written by Anthony Oei, it was in response to an earlier letter by Loke Hoe Kit published on 31 December 2018.
Loke had been critical of the way the bicentennial narrative was focussing
“more on the island’s 700-year history with greater emphasis placed on the 500 years of history preceding 1819, instead of primarily focusing on modern Singapore’s 200-year existence.”
Anthony Oei’s response letter was full of poorly-founded statements, and I wondered how it made it past the editor’s eye. Continue reading ‘Singapore bicentennial: Revising history, as it happens’